CVE-2022-26041
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedDirectory traversal vulnerability in RCCMD 4.26 and earlier allows a remote authenticated attacker with an administrative privilege to read or alter an arbitrary file on the server via unspecified vectors.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceDirectory traversal vulnerability in RCCMD versions 4.26 and earlier allows a remote authenticated attacker with administrative privileges to read or write arbitrary files on the server by manipulating file paths using '..' sequences in unspecified input vectors. The lack of proper input validation and path sanitization enables attackers to escape the intended directory and access sensitive system files.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data<= 4.26CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed RCCMD versionLocate the RCCMD installation directory and check the version information in the executable, about dialog, or version file. Common locations include the program files directory or a custom installation path.Affected if The installed version is 4.26 or earlier
-
Verify administrative access exposureReview user account configurations and determine if the RCCMD administrative interface (web, API, or service) is accessible from network locations or if administrative credentials are shared or weak.Affected if Administrative privileges can be obtained by a remote authenticated attacker
-
Inspect input handling for traversal patternsReview logs, configuration files, or network captures for any file path parameters that might accept user input without sanitization. Look for '..' sequences in request parameters.Affected if File path inputs are accepted and not validated for traversal sequences
-
Check for unusual file access patternsReview system and RCCMD logs for unexpected read or write operations to directories outside the intended RCCMD working directory.Affected if Logs show file access to paths outside the expected directory
-
Assess network exposure of RCCMD serviceDetermine if the RCCMD service port or web interface is exposed to untrusted networks without proper firewall or authentication barriers.Affected if RCCMD administrative interface is accessible from untrusted networks
You are affected if RCCMD version 4.26 or earlier is installed and the administrative interface or service is accessible to remote authenticated attackers who could inject '..' sequences in file path inputs.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement strict input validation and path sanitization to reject directory traversal sequences ('..') in file paths. Upgrade to a patched version of RCCMD beyond 4.26 if available, and apply the principle of least privilege to administrative accounts.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-26041 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-26041 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data